High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No-1 in harassing the Petitioner and his family members, preventing him from practicing Electro Homeopathy, which is not prohibited by Union of lndia or the State Govt as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art.1 4 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to interfere with the activity of the Petitioner. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO'.47098 0F 2015) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No:3 not to interfere the activity rf the Petitioner in practicing and impartrng tralning in electro homeopathy and t:turn the books and other material seized from the petitioner pending disposa of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SRIDHAR, ASST.GP F('R HOME The Court made the following: ORDER @ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36566 of 2O15 ORDER Hczrrd Sri Dr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, Icarned counsel on rccord lor the petitioncr and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned AssistanL Government Pleader for Home lor the respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. This Writ Petition is tiled seeking to declare the action of respondcnt No.1 in harassing the petitioncr and his family members and prevcnting him lrorn practicing Electro Homeopathy, rvhich is not prohibitcd bl. Union of India or the State Governmcnt, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 not to intcrfere witl-r the activiLy of the pctitioner. 'lt is the case o[ the pctitioner that the petitioner is practicing, 3. teaching and imparting training in Electro Homeopathy, which is a system of mcdicine and the existence of which is known since 1890 in In<lia and that the system of Electro Homeopathy is identical with the system of Homeopathy, in so far as the process of diagnosis is concerned and it differs from Homeopathy as regards lherapy is concerned. It is further statcd that the practitioners of Electro Homeopathy are being branded as quacks and are under the constanL threat o[ harassment/ closure of clinics by the respondents, and the petitioner was prosecuted twice by way of filing prosecutions by 1 respondent No.3 at the instance of Lokayrrkta t rd on brrth the occasions, thc pe titioner u'as acquitted uide judgmt:rll lated 23 1O 2000 in 6.g.11e.t)tr4 ol 2OOO passecl b1' rhc XI Metropol rn Magistrate at Secunclererbnd, zrrrrl .judgmcnL clatecl 16.05.20O1 in (lrl A.No.401 of 2ooo passed [rv the Vl Adrlitional Mctropolitan cssions Judge, Secundcrabad. At that stage, the petitioner filed Wril )etilion No'34476 of 1998 bclorc lhis Court assailing the ordcrs ol -re Lokal-ukta in dirccting prosecttliolt and in the rncanwhile, sinct t': petitiorler was acquitted, he u.ithcircrv thc saicl writ Pctition on 3o.o( ' 2OO9.

4. It is lirrtl'rcr cotrtended by thc petitioner that t ter a long gap of several ycars, FIR No.2 ol 2Ol5 dated 07 Ol.2Olit' as registcred by respondent No.3 br the same offences and this tirr :, by addition o[ Section 354A of lntlizrn Pcnal Code (tPC). Therefore, 1i titioner prayed to direct the responrlcut No.3 not to intcrfcre with 1l c activiff of the petitioner in practicing and imparting training in Illt:tro Homeopathy and to direct to return the books and other matcri r seizcd from the petitioner.

5. In reply to thc abovc averments, respondent l'l r.3 filed counter, inter alia, stating thzrt basing on a complaint datcd 07 )1.2015 from one Smt. Mahitha, R/o. B.K.Guda, S.R.Nagar, Hydcr-i lad, a case was registered against thc petitioner and his wife on the sir ne day on the hle of Karkhar.ra Policc St:rtion uide Crime No.2 of 2015 lil, d under Sections 354A, 506, 42O ol lPC. Thereafter, the policc' havc conducted 3 investigation and filed a charge sheet bcfore the Xll Additional Chief IVletropolitan Magistrate, Narnpalll,, Hyderabad, which culminated into taking cognizance of thc crime b1' the trial Court and after conducting trial, thc petitioncr u,:rs convictetl in the said crimc try the trial Court ir-r C.C.No. 127 of '2017 uide judgment dated 19.12.2019.

6. [t is also sta[ed by'respondcnt No.3 in the counter affidavit that various other cases in such of[cnces n'erc also registered against thc petitioner inclr-rding violation of the provisions of Section 27 of Drugs ancl Cosmetics Act, 1940 and other related provisions Further, the respondcnt No.3 rvhilc refuting the allegations of harassment of the petitioncr and his lamily members by thc police, has specilically stated that the policc had ncver harassed the petitioner and his farnily , membcrs no!- preventcd the pctitioner from practicing Electro 1 Homeopathy, zrs allegcd bv the petitioner in the Writ Petition and that during the course of investigation in the cases registered against him, he was interrogated and the same cannoL be treated as harassment. 7 . The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his family members have been harassed by the respondents, particularly I I respondent No.3-SHO atid thereforc, the pctitioner requested this Court to direct respondent No.3-SHO not to interfere with the activity of the petitioner.

8. [n view of lhe counter filed by respondent No.3, wherein specihc statements havc been rnade by respondent No.3-SHO denying the 4 allegations of harassment of the petilioner and his fa - ily rnembcrs, and stating that interrogation of the petitioner dttri - 3 the course of invcstigation purslran t to registration of various r I tncs against the petit,ior-rer and his u ife , cannoL be treated as subicr rrg the petitioner and l-ris lamily rlcmbt-rs to harzrssment.

9. In the light o[ thc said dcvclopment, the rclief: rr-rght in tire Wril Petil ior-r has rvorked itself out and nothing st,t - ivcs for furLher adjudication in the prcscnt procccdings.

10. Accordingll , tl.rr: Writ Pctition stands disrnis;,' as infnrctuous. Howcvcr, it is open to the petiLioner, if so adviscd, tu rursue any other remt:dies available in iaru,. Thcre shall be no ordcr as costs. As a sequel, pcnding misccllaneous applicatr rs, if any, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// .. \ sd/- u. SUDHA ---..+'- - As\r iJ\Nr REGJI,BAR- , s\rrou oFFlcER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI P B.VUAY KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP Hyderabad. [OUT] for Home, High Court for the S 'i te of Telangana at Two CD CoPies BSK MP HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 ORDER WP.No.36566 of 2015 Y o o .. )'( ( TI HE SIa I il ,rAN ?fl?F * ! SPl'-^' ""' z Ct .}, * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS